[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Work-needing packages report for Sep 6, 2002

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 06:28:16PM +0100, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 06:56:09PM +0200, Tomas Pospisek's Mailing Lists wrote:
> > And, btw. and IMHO: there is a lot of software that is "maintained" but
> > of lesser quality than non-maintained software.
> Yes, please stop beating this horse. I said that being unmaintained is a
> good indicator, and I stand by that. I also don't particularly care
> about the distinction between "completely orphaned" and "de facto
> orphaned due to missing-in-action maintainer"; they end up being the
> same thing in the long run anyway.

And please remember here, I'm talking about putting a threshold on
pckages that have been unmaintained for a long time. A big
threshold. My original example was of a package that has been orphaned
for 3 years. 

If no developer in 2 or 3 years has looked at the wnpp and said "hey,
I want to maintain this package" there's a good chance that they are
not using these packages for a reason. 

And of course, if we do remove the package and someone objects, then
we can put it back in. 

Ok, how about flagging packages for removal that

1. have been unmaintained for X days
2. have X number of bugs of severity X pending

is that reasonable? that is definitely something that can be automated
and worked into the wnpp reports. 

and if your complaint is that noone reads the wnpp reports and won't
see it, then maybe that's because the wnpp list is composed of lots of 
software that has been orphaned for over a year.  

michael cardenas | lead software engineer | lindows.com | hyperpoem.net

"You never enjoy the world aright, till the sea itself floweth in your veins, till you are clothed with the heavens, and crowned with the stars."
- Thomas Traherne

Attachment: pgplvI7f6EQSV.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: